tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7012366747492399470.post7588176372472834653..comments2023-09-07T06:01:31.574-07:00Comments on That's Not Poker: Pure Odds PokerMarshallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05026007603250510224noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7012366747492399470.post-27399512613283740412007-08-06T11:57:00.000-07:002007-08-06T11:57:00.000-07:00In this case, that "someone" on the rail was some ...In this case, that "someone" on the rail was some d0nk named Phil Ivey. Never heard of him.jtrey333https://www.blogger.com/profile/06702556464073696564noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7012366747492399470.post-41066278555571230442007-08-06T11:08:00.000-07:002007-08-06T11:08:00.000-07:00Here's one of the clips I was referring to. At th...Here's one of the <A HREF="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsZa2FnlZEc" REL="nofollow">clips </A> I was referring to. At the 1:53 point of the clip, you see Seidel's AA versus Matusow's T8 and Mike flops Tens and Eights (Austin, you out there?) and the money gets all in on the flop. Mike is fumbling around trying to hedge his stake in the hand since there's 150K in the middle. He ends up just telling the dealer to run it and Seidel catches running Sevens to make a higher two pair.<BR/><BR/>I also found this <A HREF="http://www.cardplayer.com/poker-news/article/9069" REL="nofollow"> article</A> that explains more about insurance. In this case it is actually a side bet with someone on the rail who will offer odds against a suckout. Phil Hellmuth actually paid out more in insurance premiums than he won by taking sixth place.Sushi Cowboyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00753872848839415763noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7012366747492399470.post-69413078183129559142007-08-06T10:44:00.000-07:002007-08-06T10:44:00.000-07:00I've thought about that too. I thought that the id...I've thought about that too. I thought that the idea might be applicable to rebuys in tournaments. If someone is just playing too loose/d0nkish and got their money in bad then they don't merit a rebuy. If they were well ahead and got sucked out on then it's OK for them to get a second chance. But then all sorts of details got in the way about someone losing their stack over multiple hands and on multiple streets of a hand and it really isn't a practical idea unless it there was one huge hand where someone clearly got their money in good/bad.<BR/><BR/>I think that the issue one would run into is that it drastically changes pot odd calculations since you now are betting each street individually. If you stay in the hand, you can KNOW you are going to get the first two streets rebated back to you if you had the nut top set and someone caught a flush on the river. It makes it worth your while to call way more than you originally would just to get your money back from previous streets.<BR/><BR/>Interesting idea though. I think something more workable is the "insurance" idea in high stakes cash games. Let's say someone knows they are ahead on the turn because they have the nut straight but knows that the other player is on a flush draw. At any point in the hand, the person with the straight could offer to buy out the pot from the other person. So if there's 500 in the middle after all the money gets in on the turn and the guy with the straight offers "I'll buy this pot off you for 100". The guy with the flush sees how far he is behind and accepts the buyout or instead wants to "gamble" and ride it out. I saw this alluded to a couple times watching poker online. I don't know exactly how it works (I'll do some digging around) but that was the gist of it from what I could see.<BR/><BR/>Again, roughly the same idea as a variance reducing mechanism, just done differently.Sushi Cowboyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00753872848839415763noreply@blogger.com